Improving process and enhancing parent and therapist satisfaction through a coordinated intake approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent research indicates that, in Canada, approximately one in five children entering school are not meeting age appropriate milestones in physical, social, language, or cognitive development. Even where support services are available families often face barriers in accessing these. With the goals of improving access to programs, reducing barriers and increasing consistency and efficiency, a new Coordinated Intake Approach (CIA) was developed for families accessing Children’s Rehabilitation Services. It was expected that the CIA would result in 1) parents finding the intake process more satisfactory and easier to complete, 2) therapists feeling more supported and satisfied and 3) a decrease in wait times from the date referrals were received to initial contact with families. Initial data was collected prior to CIA implementation through parent telephone interviews and therapist surveys. This data was then compared with telephone interviews, therapist surveys and chart reviews completed following implementation. Results were consistent with expectations, suggesting that a family centered, CIA contributed to increased parent and therapist satisfaction as well as improved process efficiency. CIA successes and areas for improvement are identified. Possible directions for further process enhancements are also discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".